Kalam & Causal Finitism - Joe Schmid & Robert C. Koons

The purpose of Intellectual Conservatism is to defend the true, good and beautiful things of life that are jeopardized in mainstream academia and society. On this page, you will find artwork, music, satire, academic papers, lectures and my own projects defending the duty of conserving these true, good and beautiful things.

[AlexADalton]

I'd like to see a debate on causal finitism between a randomly chosen subscriber to this channel and Joe's roommate. Is it possible to set that up?

[dwong]

Great point by Professor Koons. It was the conjunction of the patchwork principle + the hypothetical scenario that was deemed false by the contradiction proposed. That in no way logically entails the patchwork principle necessarily fails, it could be the case that either the patchwork principle was false alone in the conjunction, or the hypothetical scenario alone was false alone in the conjunction, or both parts were false in the conjunction. Showing the conjunction is false does not show preference to any of these outcomes.

And it seems like Rob Koons was advocating for us to stick with what is clear over what is unclear, meaning to just stick to the patchwork principle maintaining in the contradiction and the hypothetical scenario alone being the source of the contradiction.

At least that’s what I understood from this (sorry for any misunderstandings as I am not very familiar with contemporary philosophical terminology.)

[JohnDeRosa]

Great discussion! Suan thanks for making this happen. I thought 3 points were particularly interesting: (1) Semantic paradoxes don't generate the same issues as those which are paradoxical due to the causality involved (you can make a shirt with the liar paradox on it). (2) Causal finitism would put limits on how God (even the God of classical theism) could make the world (e.g. he could not reveal information to a prophet that depended on an infinite causal sequence of future events). (3) Towards the end, both Joe and Rob mention the Third Way and its non-temporal interpretation which I have personally found to be right (John Knasas and other Thomists take this reading as well). Overall, I thought this was a great exchange of ideas.

[nemrodx]

Excellent conversation!
Joe is always good but Koons is stellar...!! Congratulations to both.

[catholic_based]

The collab we knew we wanted and needed. It’s here!!

[annestephens]

Enjoying this discussion with the support of subtitles this morning, I have been introduced to 'Causal Planetism' and the 'Bender Daddy Paradox' -- so the reapiing has been far from grim. Thank you 👍🏼

[telosbound]

such an interesting discussion!! i thoroughly enjoyed it

[Mentat]

Thank you for this! I was very happy to hear someone of Koons' caliber say exactly what I have been thinking of this UPD approach. I have called it elsewhere, "epistemological poison", for that same reason.

[StudyRelaxingMusicHR]

Awesome conversation with three great intellects!

[MaverickChristian]

48:46 to 55:24 - An oblique reference to the Eternal Society Paradox.

For the curious, I talk about the Eternal Society Paradox on my channel in Vlog Episode 17, and I talk about the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis in Vlog Episode 18.

[Sveccha]

This is so much fun! Thanks, gentlemen.

[rickyenlow]

Lovely conversation! (At least I assume it was, I didn't understand a single word of it) :)

[jamescantrell]

It's how Dr. Koons shakes his head "no" so often. Let Joe speak, and gently walk us through where those concepts break down for you.

[vulteiuscatellus]

I felt like they were talking past each other on the possibility of a world full of endless suffering. I think what Koons was trying to say is that the possibility of a world full of suffering, endless or not, is ruled out by theism, while endlessness itself is ruled out by paradoxes involving infinity.

[VACatholic]

34:00 I love Dr. Koons laying down the law there. Joe's a bit over his skis, and it's nice to see a chiding.

[dustinellerbe]

Joe, are you saying Rob's patchwork principles are causing contradictions? That's my takeaway from this.

[jamescantrell]

I wish Dr. Koons was slightly more gracious. Joe is doing his best and I feel like Rob is too certain on his presentations. They may be truer but help us plebs gently through the gate.

[AbrarManzoor]

Joe my brother you talk too fast plz slow your speed

[Friction]

Great discussion! I thought what Koons had to say about the semantic parodies was very fair; I would not have gone that route. I do think that there are clear counterexamples to the patchwork principle, like the (finite) lightbulb case I constructed in discussion with Alex Malpass. I do think that Koons' objection to UPD at around 48:45 is easily rejected by noting that not only can there not be infinitely many reapers which collectively satisfy those conditions in that way, but there also can not be infinitely many reapers which /possibly/ collectively satisfy the conditions in that way (this follows trivially in S5). It just follows immediately that a "world" at which the coin comes up tails and they do not get the instruction is not a possible world (contrary to what you might think), since it requires that the reapers have this impossible modal property. However, it will do no good for Koons to say that the reapers do not have this modal property, since then there would be possible worlds at which the coin lands tails, and possible worlds at which the coin lands heads and they fail to satisfy their task, and from this we get no paradox. We can say similar things about other cases as well.

[TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Rob got a little too excited at times. But good stuff. Rasmussen and Malpass should have joined in too.